For extensions and alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004578 Midlothian, Spencer Parade, Stanwick, North Northamptonshire NN9 6QJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Dan Grinter against the decision of North Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref is NE/25/00368/FUL. • The development proposed is for extensions and alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extensions and alterations at Midlothian, Spencer Parade, Stanwick, NN9 6QJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref NE/25/00368/FUL, dated 27/03/2025, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations - 2901/1B, Site Plan, Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations - 2901/2B, Floor Plan and Elevations as existing - 2901/3 and location plan dated 27 March 2025. 3) No development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples. Preliminary Matters 2. The scheme includes a single storey side extension. There is no disagreement between the main parties over the acceptability of this element of the scheme. I find no reason to conclude otherwise. On that basis my assessment will focus on the impact of the two-storey rear extension. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within a suburban area where there are a mix of house types including bungalows, semi-detached, terraced and detached properties. This is a residential area that has evolved over time with dwellings constructed Appeal Decision 6004578 2 over various periods throughout the twentieth century. Dwellings are generally constructed in a red or orange brick although in some cases white/cream render has been incorporated into the external finish. Properties tend to have either a hipped or gable end roof design with a grey or brown tiled roof. 5. The appeal site is quite unique in that it is a pebble dash rendered bungalow which has a large expanse of flat roof around a modest pitched roof and is set on higher land levels than other properties on Spencer Parade. The appeal property is sited between existing bungalows, namely 1 Green Lane and 30 Parklands. Although when viewed from Spencer Parade there is not a strong relationship between the appeal property and either adjoining property due to the level of separation and the fact they front onto different roads. 6. The most significant element of the scheme is the construction of a two-storey rear extension which incorporates a catslide roof. Whilst this is an uncommon roof feature in the street, this does not mean different is automatically harmful, especially in a location where there are wide variety of designs and house types. A small section of the raised roof would be visible from the front on Spencer Parade, but the change would be most obvious and prominent when viewed from the rear, especially within Parklands. Parklands contains a mix of two-storey dwellings, bungalows, flat roof garages and adjacent to the appeal property there is 1.8m high fencing with gates which provides rear access to properties on Green Lane. 7. The appeal property is already clearly visible from Parklands and with the extensive sections of flat roof and pebble dash finish it is considered that the existing property is not sympathetic to the surrounding dwellings. Given that there are already two-storey dwellings in Parklands, the creation of a second floor of development would not look out of place and the removal of most of the flat roof is also an improvement. The replacement of the pebble dash with a more neutral render fits more comfortably within the locality. 8. The addition of a front door to the Spencer Parade elevation and the extension of the pitched roof across the whole frontage adds a greater level of coherence to this elevation. This is a notable improvement in the appearance of the dwelling when viewed from Spencer Parade thereby contributing positively to the character of the area. It is pertinent that paragraph 2.1 of the East Northamptonshire Council Householder Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2020 indicates that extensions should be designed to take account of the characteristics of the surrounding area which is the case with the appeal scheme. 9. The Council are concerned about the visibility of the appeal proposal from Green Lane. On my site visit I walked along the full length of Green Lane. Currently, there are only very limited views of the appeal property when walking southwards along Green Lane. Given the relatively modest increase in height, the view of the appeal scheme would be little more than glimpses between the bungalows thereby not fundamentally changing the streetscape. 10. I conclude that the proposed extensions and alterations would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Policy EN11 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 and Policy HDN1 of the Stanwick Neighbourhood Development Plan. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to Appeal Decision 6004578 3 create a distinctive local character by responding to the site’s immediate and wider context and local character to create new streets, spaces and buildings which draw on the best of that local character without stifling innovation. Other Matters 11. Concerns have been raised that the appeal scheme would have an adverse impact on the occupiers of 1 Green Lane in terms of both a loss of sunlight and loss of privacy. No 1 is a bungalow with rear facing ground floor windows that look towards the side elevation of the appeal property. There is currently a substantial hedgerow along the rear boundary of No 1 which provides a level of screening from the appeal site. The proposed single-storey extension would result in built form closer to the rear garden and windowed rear elevation of No 1. However, given the limited height of the extension and level of separation the loss of light and privacy would be negligible. Furthermore, the two-storey extension would be located in the centre of the plot away from the boundary with No 1. 12. There is one small rooflight proposed on the side elevation of the extension. However, this would serve the en-suite to the bedroom. Given that this is not a main habitable room, it is highly unlikely that it would be regularly used to overlook the house and garden of No 1. Therefore, the proposal would not unduly impact on the living conditions experienced by the occupiers of No 1. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. Given the changes proposed the submission of external materials is required to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is maintained. 14. The local highway authority has requested conditions requiring the provision of correctly dimensioned parking spaces, the access to be hard surfaced and the provision of pedestrian visibility splays. Given the proposed parking areas serves only a single dwelling and is of an acceptable size for 2 cars it is not necessary for these to be formally marked out to be acceptable in planning terms. Furthermore, given the site access is located at the end of a cul-de-sac where there would be minimal pedestrian movements I am satisfied that conditions are not required to cover visibility splays or hard surfacing. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6004578 4